Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Day of the Gold-diggers

Duncan has a good post up on the current court victories of two Gold-digging ex-wives allowed to legally fleece millions from their ex-husbands.

Where on earth did this idea of a legal 'right' to a luxury lifestyle come from? If the country suddenly went into recession, could I sue the Chancellor because he had cut off my lifestyle? If I suddenly lost my job, should my previous employer be forced to carry on paying me my wages each year until I die? And if the ex-husband has to carry on paying the ex-wife, why does she not have to carry on providing her 'side' of the marriage - which presumably adds up to housework and sex.

Many people are coming to incorrect conclusions about this current trend for legal extorsion following divorce. For example, many are saying 'Oh the men should just have got themselves a pre-nup, then they'd never have all these problems.' But this isn't true, as a judge is not bound to follow a pre-nup. The law is the law. You can't make up your own agreements that over-write the law. Secondly, everyone is concentrating on the fact that it is financially successful men who are the ones being targeted in these cases, but the precedent has now been set for women to claim 'loss of earnings' for some projected amount that they 'could have earned' had they not given up work to be a housewife or mother. Therefore the lesson from this is not that only rich men are vulnerable, but that a man is setting himself up for this if he marries a 'career woman'.

Lastly, this is going to back-fire on women in more ways than the obvious 'men are going to avoid marriage'. For example, men will have a growing GENERAL distrust of women, and married men will feel less motivation to work hard and earn lots of money.

This latest piece of legal chicanery simply re-inforces my already firmly held belief that the only safe option for men is to stay single. Of course, it's always women who moan that they can't find a man (i.e. wealthy man) to marry them. Not surprising really is it since any man who marries can now look forward to paying his wife's and then ex-wife's bills for the rest of his life even if she screws every man in town.

Don't worry.I called a "woman hater" when I point out all the sexism against men by certain guys. Every single one of them knows not to get married as there is ZERO benefit for a male, your life becomes that of a slave and you will have all your money and property spent during marriage and taken during divorce.

So even brainwashed feminist pussy assed males know marriage is a bad deal.

Turn of the tide: feminists begin to regret

Cosmopolitan (The women's magazine that urges women to use men for sex) Editor Lorraine Candy has a change of mind and now urges women not to have "Soul-less sex":

"We didn't feel ashamed about one-night stands...this, we thought, is what feminism is about."

70s feminist Fay Weldon now says:

"It is the fault of me and my like, who... got it wrong.

So were we wrong, we feminists, setting women free? The results have been devastating – greater than we ever imagined.

We steamed ahead, changing the world with too little caution, and I hope the future will forgive us.

The pendulum has swung too far over. But it may yet swing back again. Societies, thank God, tend to be self-righting."

"Once a man could look forward to starting a family and the dignity that came from being the provider. Forget it. At best as a man you're decorative, look after the kids and earn a bit sometimes; at worst you're a write-off. Women are elbowing the men out. The boys get anxious, the girls swagger. The male suicide rate goes up, female down. Twenty-eight per cent of us now live in single person households - a lonely and unnatural state - and most of the 28 per cent consist of young men. It is strange that it is left to a woman to suggest, in the normal nurturing way, that men start some kind of movement to promote their gender's status and self-esteem - call it masculinism, brotherism, machoism, what you want - and some mark of the success of the feminist movement, that it needs to be done."

60's feminist Doris Lessing now says:"It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."

An excerpt from an interview with Joan Rivers:

"She's not with the feminists when it comes to matters of the heart. For her, they're to blame for the current parlous state of our relationships, as depicted in these television Shows (Such as Sex in the city) and films. "I saw this coming. You cannot be equal to a man, you cannot make a man feel 'I don't need you' or 'I'll take my sex when I want it'. All these shows are so sad."

Camille Paglia :

"Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials.

But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper.

Male conspiracy cannot explain ALL female failures.

I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant.

. . . Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species."

PubMed, which indexes the 3,000 leading medical journals, from the 1950s to present, contains 42 articles on women’s health for every one on men’s health.